TMI Blog1976 (7) TMI 70X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... les, 1944. In order to appreciate the point which arises for our determination, it would be necessary to state a few facts. 2.The petitioner manufactures cartain iron and steel products in its mill which is of the type known as Bar Mill/Merchant Mill. There is a controversy between the parties as to the nature and character of those products. The petitioner contends that its products are known as "Bars" and that they are manufactured in different shapes such as round bars, square bars, flat bars etc. and that they are not subject to excise duty. The Excise authorities content on other hand that the products manufactured by the petitioner are 'hoops' and that they are subject to excise duty. The relevant tariff items under which excise dut ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ducts which were cleared on payment of duty under protest describing such products as "strips" and "flats". The thickness of these products was of 3 mm to 1 mm. Thereupon the Assistant Collector of Excise issued a show cause notice dated March 20, 1972 to the petitioner asking it to show cause as to why its claim should not be rejected because of the fact that the concerned products appeared to be not "flats" and "bars" as per the specifications indicated in the Customs Tariff Guide. The petitioner made its representation and after considering the same the Assistant Collector sanctioned the petitioner's claim for refund. Within a few months thereafter, however, on November 9, 1972 the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Division I, Ahmed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... self was not applicable. Even assuming that from March 1, 1966 the goods in question were not covered by Item No. 26AA(ia), the entire amount refunded could not have been claimed back from the petitioner by the excise authorities, for the period for which the refund was granted was from March 23, 1965 to May 24, 1967. Therefore, the refund granted for the period from March 23, 1965 to March 1, 1966 could not have been claimed back from the petitioner on the said ground. The second ground on which the impugned action has been assailed, and in our opinion rightly assailed, is that the impugned action is based upon the Trade Notice dated June 21, 1967 (Annexure 'B'). This is apparent from the second ground set out in the show cause notice at A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issued, they would not be binding on the subordinate authorities. Under the circumstances, the impugned action in so far as it is solely or even partly based on such instructions issued by the Collectorate of Central Excise, Baroda is vitiated. In our opinion, therefore, the petitioner must succeed on these two grounds and we are not required to go into the other questions. The impugned decision must accordingly be quashed and set aside. 8.We wish to make it clear, however, that it would be open to the excise authorities, subject to the provisions of the Act, to issue a fresh notice on legal and permissible grounds for recovery of the amount which according to them has been erroneously refunded and that this judgment will not come in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
